Keehn Hosier vs. Crye-Leike Commercial, Inc. M2000-01182-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Trial Court Judge: Tom E. Gray
This appeal involves a dispute regarding the application of an attorney's fees provision in a property management agreement. The property owner filed suit against the property manager in the Chancery Court for Sumner County alleging not only breach of contract but also fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded the property owner a $1,600 judgment for breach of contract and dismissed his remaining claims. Thereafter, the trial court awarded the property owner an additional $15,944 for his legal fees and $219 in discretionary costs. The property manager has appealed only from the award for legal fees, asserting that the property owner is not entitled to reimbursement for the legal fee associated with his unsuccessful tort claims. We have determined that the challenged legal services were necessary to counter the property manager's exculpatory clause defense and that the challenged legal fees, under all the circumstances, are reasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's $15,944 award for legal fees.
Sumner
Court of Appeals
AT & T v. Ruth Johnson M2000-01407-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Per Curiam
Trial Court Judge: Ellen Hobbs Lyle
This case involves (1) the issue of the liability of AT&T for sales and use taxes assessed by the Commissioner for the years 1990 through 1994, and (2) the issue of whether the Chancery Court had subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim for refund of taxes where the taxpayer failed to file a formal claim for each of the years, 1993 excepted, "under oath and supported by proper proof." AT&T sold telephone central office equipment and provided engineering services to BellSouth and insisted that these sales and services were industrial machinery and therefore exempt from sales and use taxes.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Emmanuel Churches of Christ, et al vs. Frances Foster, et al M2000-00812-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: John A. Turnbull
This is a dispute between a separating local church and the national organization over the church property in Smithville. The dispute involves the interpretation of two deeds, one in 1940 and another in 1943. The Chancery Court of DeKalb County held that the majority of the property belonged to the local congregation. Against the national church's arguments that the chancellor's order violated the separation of church and state and was contrary to the law and the facts, we affirm.
DeKalb
Court of Appeals
In the Matter of: All Assessments, Review of Ad Valorem Assessments of Public Utility Companies for Tax Year 1999 and Tax Year 2000 M2000-00399-COA-R12-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
In these consolidated cases, a consortium of counties and cities appeals the actions of the Tennessee State Board of Equalization in reducing public utility assessments by fifteen per cent. Acknowledging that all sub-constitutional issues involved in the cases have been foreclosed by the decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court in In Re: All Assessments 1998, No. M1998-00243-SC-R11-CV, 2000 WL 1710174 (Tenn. Nov. 16, 2000), Appellants challenge the constitutionality of Tennessee Code Annotated section 67-5-903(f) and section 67-5-1302(b)(1). We hold both sections of the Code to be constitutional and affirm the decision of the Tennessee State Board of Equalization.
Court of Appeals
Marcia Hackett vs. Roy Hackett M1999-01576-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Muriel Robinson
This is a divorce case wherein Wife appeals from the distribution of marital property and seeks attorney's fees and costs on appeal. We affirm the action of the trial judge.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Kevin Johnson vs. Donna Johnson M2000-00358-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
This appeal involves the dissolution of a ten year marriage. The trial court awarded the husband a divorce after concluding that the wife was guilty of inappropriate marital conduct. The trial court granted custody of the parties' three minor children to the father and refused the mother visitation rights, and held her in criminal contempt of court. The wife now appeals. We have determined that the trial court properly awarded custody to the father but the trial court erred in refusing the mother visitation, and in convicting her of criminal contempt. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
County Residents Against Speedway Havoc, et al vs. Wilson County Commission, et al M2000-01561-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: C. K. Smith
Opponents of a proposed motor speedway in Wilson County filed a petition which challenged on numerous grounds the zoning change that made construction of the speedway possible. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that the county government had acted in accordance with the applicable laws. We affirm.
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Steven H. Rezba vs. Brian W. Randolph M2000-01973-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: Jeffrey S. Bivins
Dr. Steven H. Rezba purchased the dental practice of Dr. Brian W. Randolph in April of 1996, paying some cash down and giving a promissory note for the balance. Dr. Rezba filed this action to rescind the contract claiming that Dr. Randolph had inflated his revenues by fraudulent practices, and Dr. Randolph counterclaimed for damages for breach of the contract. The Chancery Court of Williamson County denied Dr. Rezba's motion to amend to include a claim for damages and granted summary judgment to Dr. Randolph on all issues. We affirm.
The defendant, Robert D. Walsh, was convicted after a jury trial in the Shelby County Criminal court of the aggravated sexual battery of a foster child who was in his care. He appeals this conviction, alleging various errors in evidentiary admissions, impermissible comment on the evidence by the trial court, and improper sentencing. We modify the defendant's sentence to Range I classification and remand for correction of a clerical error in the judgment form. Otherwise, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
The defendant's conviction for first degree murder during perpetration of robbery was reversed by this court in 1998. The defendant was subsequently retried, again convicted of first degree murder during the perpetration of a robbery, and sentenced to life imprisonment. This appeal followed, whereby the defendant alleges the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction, and the trial court erroneously admitted the audio recording and transcript of the victim's phone call to 911. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the defendant's conviction and sentence.
The defendant was convicted by a Shelby County jury of theft of property valued greater than $10,000 and forgery. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of 15 years for theft as a persistent offender and six years for forgery as a career offender. In this appeal as a matter of right, defendant alleges (1) the evidence is not sufficient to support the convictions, and (2) his sentence is excessive. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
This is an appeal from defendant's conviction for second degree murder for which he received a sentence of twenty-three years and six months. In this appeal, defendant presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict; and (2) whether the trial court erred in defining the mental state of "knowing" for the offense of second degree murder. We conclude the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; however, we conclude the jury charge constituted plain error by failing to instruct on the applicable definition of "knowing." Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.
Shelby
Court of Criminal Appeals
Dwayne Hawkins v. Patrick Hart M2000-02449-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Barbara N. Haynes
This matter began when Plaintiffs signed an agreement to purchase an automobile dealership from Defendant, Patrick Hart. Defendant Hart refused to honor this agreement and later agreed to sell the dealership to Defendant, Nelson Bowers. The current case flows from these breach of contract and inducement of breach of contract actions previously dismissed by the trial court and appealed to this Court. We are now asked to determine whether the trial court correctly applied the Court of Appeals decision in this matter. Plaintiffs appeal two orders issued by the trial court on remand: (1) an order dismissing claims for conversion and interference with business relations against the Bowers Defendants, reinstating the discretionary costs previously vacated by this Court in favor of the Bowers Defendants, and denying Plaintiffs' motion to amend to add additional claims and parties; and (2) a second order dismissing Plaintiffs' separate action against European Motors and Sonic Automotive, parties whom Plaintiffs had previously tried to join in the original action. We find that the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the Court of Appeals decision and affirm both orders in their entirety.
Davidson
Court of Appeals
Linda Kinard v. John Kinard M2000-00674-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
Upon remand from earlier appeal, the trial court determined (1) Husband owed Wife past due alimony without interest; (2) Husband owed Wife additional $47,933.50 on note with interest from 30 days after the entry of the Court of Appeals opinion until the amount is paid; (3) Husband was not required to release the residence as collateral on the home equity loan; (4) Husband retained ownership of the insurance policy; (5) no attorney's fees were awarded to either party. Wife filed a second appeal to dispute the decision of the trial court and to determine the date at which post-judgment interest begins to accrue, whether husband should be required to discharge the home equity loan, whether husband should be restricted in use of life insurance policy, and whether attorney's fees should have been awarded. For the following reasons, we affirm the decision of the trial court in regards to the attorney's fees, life insurance policy, and home equity loan and reverse the decision of the trial court with respect to post-judgment interest.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
Robert Terry Davis, et al vs. Wilson County, TN M2000-00785-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge Ben H. Cantrell
Trial Court Judge: John D. Wootten, Jr.
Wilson County sought to modify its health insurance plan providing coverage for "retired" employees. Two employees, fitting the definition of retired employees but not yet retired, challenged the modification on the ground that their rights in the prior plan had vested. The Chancery Court of Wilson County held that the employees had a vested right to continue under the prior plan. We hold that health insurance benefits are welfare benefits that do not vest absent a contractual provision that they cannot be changed. We therefore reverse the lower court's decision and dismiss the complaint.
Wilson
Court of Appeals
Marika Avery vs. Thomas Avery M2000-00889-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Trial Court Judge: Russell Heldman
In this divorce case ending a 25 year marriage, the trial court classified a bequest made solely to the husband as marital property under an "implied partnership" theory and divided the bequest equally. The parties' other property was divided, and the wife was awarded alimony in futuro. The husband appeals the classification and division of property and the award of alimony in futuro. We reverse the trial court's classification of the bequest as marital property and classify the original bequest as Husband's separate property. We find the increase in value of that separate property to be marital because of the parties' contribution to its maintenance and increase. We modify the award of marital property accordingly, modify the alimony award, and decline to award Wife attorney fees on appeal.
Williamson
Court of Appeals
Allison Coats v. Smyrna/Rutherford County Airport Authority M2000-00234-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge William B. Cain
Trial Court Judge: Robert E. Corlew, III
This action was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant following two requests by the plaintiff pursuant to the Tennessee Public Records Act for certain documents relating to the Smyrna Airport negotiations with Wiggins Group, PLC./Plane Station, Inc. The plaintiff alleged a statutory right to inspect certain documents. Ultimately, the trial court ordered all of the documents released to the plaintiff, but ordered correspondence addressed to or signed by the SRCAA attorney placed under seal pending appeal. The principal issue on this appeal is whether the appellee is entitled to the documents under seal pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 10-7-503.
Rutherford
Court of Appeals
Patricia Mora vs. Gilberto Mora W1999-02483-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: D. J. Alissandratos
This case involves a dispute stemming from the parties' divorce in 1991. The divorce decree provided that Ms. Mora and the parties' adult daughter could live in the marital home for thirty months following the divorce, at which time the home was to be put on the market for sale and the proceeds divided. After the thirty month period expired, Mr. and Ms. Mora attempted to settle the dispute concerning the marital home. The parties each executed documents, and a dispute arose as to which document embodied the parties' intentions. The trial court ruled on the parties' settlement dispute, and the court also appointed Ms. Mora as the adult daughter's guardian and ordered that Mr. Mora provide support for his daughter. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Defendant, Bryan Herman Dowdy, appeals his jury convictions for vehicular homicide by intoxication, two counts of vehicular assault, and felony evading arrest. He was sentenced to eight years and six months for vehicular homicide, two years for each of the vehicular assaults, and two years for felony evading arrest, with an effective sentence of ten years and six months. In this appeal, he raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his convictions; (2) whether items from his vehicle were improperly admitted; (3) whether his blood alcohol test result was improperly admitted into evidence; (4) whether the underlying DUI charge should have been severed; (5) whether he was improperly denied access to an officer's personnel file during cross-examination; (6) whether the trial court erroneously instructed the jury to use their "common sense;" and (7) whether his sentence was excessive. After our review of the record, we find all issues to be without merit and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Lauderdale
Court of Criminal Appeals
Musson Theatrical vs. Federal Express W2000-01247-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge W. Frank Crawford
Trial Court Judge: Floyd Peete, Jr.
Plaintiffs, as shippers, sued defendant, FedEx Corporation, for fraud and misrepresentation because of defendant's practice of charging more for economy two-day service than for one-day service for certain packages. Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted on the basis of preemption by federal law, Airline Deregulation Act, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs appeal. We affirm.
Shelby
Court of Appeals
Susan Sellers vs. Randall Sellers W2000-01475-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Presiding Judge Alan E. Highers
Trial Court Judge: Ron E. Harmon
This appeal involves a belated attempt by the appellant, Randall Lee Sellers, to obtain relief from child support obligations based upon a claim that he is not the biological father of the child. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Carroll
Court of Appeals
Lula Moody vs. Gen. Motors W2000-01658-COA-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: Judge David R. Farmer
Trial Court Judge: C. Creed Mcginley
Plaintiffs sued General Motors Corporation and Townsend Chevrolet-Buick-Pontiac, Inc. as a result of injuries sustained by Ms. Moody as a result of a single car accident. In a separate complaint they sued Townsend alleging that it had sold them a purportedly new vehicle when in fact the odometer had been rolled back. The cases were consolidated for trial and the accident case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the defendants. The case involving the odometer was dismissed by the trial court. Appellants failed to present this court with either a transcript or a statement of the evidence. We affirm.
The Defendant, Bobby J. Hughes, was indicted by the Shelby County Grand Jury for the offense of attempted second degree murder. He was subsequently tried by jury and found guilty of attempted second degree murder. In this appeal as of right, the Defendant argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred by allowing into evidence four photographs of the victim's wounds; (3) that the trial court erred by allowing the victim to identify the Defendant from a photograph during trial; (4) that the trial court erred by allowing the State to question the Defendant about prior convictions after defense counsel concluded redirect examination; and (5) that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on attempted voluntary manslaughter. We conclude that the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on the crime of attempted voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense was plain error and was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse the Defendant's conviction and remand the case to the trial court for a new trial.
Stoney Mccarter v. Transportation Insurance Company, W1999-00667-WC-R3-CV
Authoring Judge: W. Michael William Michael Maloan, Special Judge
Trial Court Judge: Robert L. Childers, Judge
The plaintiff, Stoney McCarter, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Shelby County granting defendants' motion for summary judgment. The trial court held plaintiff's court-approved lump sum settlement was not entered into pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. _ 5-6-241(a)(1) and therefore could not be reopened pursuant to _ 5-6-241(a)(2). For the reasons stated in this opinion, We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
